Denying Christianity and other religions
by: Lucas Werner
To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Fact. If nothing exists in a vacuum, there has to be a vacuum, as it is where nothing exists, which is something. The vacuum is something, which means that nothing is also something, if it was not in a vacuum where would it be? (The only place nothing exists is in a vacuum.) It wouldn't be, period, it would be something. Which means nothing would be something. Nihil esse quid. Nothing is also something, which means nothing doesn't exist, as something exists. Something must exist, outside the vacuum. Which it does. The universe and everything in it just an example. As to the existence of anything else, that's an argument ad absurdum A premise being true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true, is a logical fallacy.
Everything in existence has an essential nature to it, it has structure. This is essentialism. What something is, is more important than what it could be. Essence, structure, is more important than than it's general existence. What it is, is more important than that it is. The quiddity (whatness / somethingness) of existence is more important than the quality and quantity of existence, itself. It stands to reason then, that nothing is less important than existence, if something is more important than existence. Nothing is secondary to existence, if something is nothing. Nothing is less important than existence, itself. Nothing is less certain than existence. Nothing is then, therefore, more uncertain than existence. Uncertain is synonymous with less certainty. Secondary is synonymous with less important. And lesser is synonymous negative.
Nothing is more negative than existence. Nothing is more contradictory than existence. Nothing is in more denial than existence. 'More denial than' is synonymous with 'no'. No is synonymous with non. Nothing is non existence, therefore since nothing is something, and something implies existence, existence too is debatable. This why we have philosophy. Existence is synonymous with everything. Everything is debatable. Taoism states that wise men do not debate, however everything is debatable, especially a blanket statement like 'Wise men do not debate'. I may not be thought of as wise, but even that is debatable. As is the previous statement Taoism is only half right.
Buddhism is the search for nothingness, also known as Nirvana. Since nothing has been proven to be nonexistent, it stands to reason that Nirvana/nothingness does not exist. Buddhism is therefore bunk. Christianity states that God is omnipresent. Abrahamic thought (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, others) is also bunk as they all state that Hell is the absence of God. Whether this Hell is permanent or transitory depends on the religion. However, if God is omnipresent, God also exists in Hell. Hell is supposed to be the absence of God, yet God is omnipresent, therefore God must exist in Hell as well as Heaven, debunking at least Hell.
The only way to argue for Hell is to say it is a place of nonexistence, it is a place of nothingness. Nothingness has been proven to not exist. If nothingness existed, it would have existence, therefore it would be something, but since nothing doesn't exist, then something has to exist. And it does. The universe and everything in it exists. If Hell does not exist, then Abrahamic tradition is also bunk. If God exists, he cannot be omnipresent, because he would be present in Hell as well, which the Jews, Christians, Muslims, all believe exists. Hell cannot exist unless God is also present there, otherwise he would not be omnipresent. No Hell, no Christianity. No Hell, no Judaism, No Hell, no Islam.
Giving Christianity, et. al. the benefit of the doubt, Genesis 1:26 states that "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." I am an agnostic. If I am created in God's image then God must have desired me to be an agnostic. This would mean that God does not know he exists, because he is also an agnostic. God therefore does not know we exist or that he, if he exists, is God, if I am created "in our image". How many Gods are there? Maybe God is a schizophrenic. From the Bible, he seems to be at least bipolar. I bet the Christians would love that.
As for atheism, if one is an atheist, then God too must be an atheist according to Gen. 1:26. God would have to KNOW he doesn't exist. "Cogito ergo sum", said Descartes. This is absurd, however, to be is to think, at least as far as sentience goes. To think is to be. At least, as far as cogito ergo sum, could be stretched to also say, "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. I think I think, therefore I think I am.", Ambrose Bierce. True, Bierce was being humorous when he said this, but he may also be correct, considering the amount of nonsense and suffering there is in the world.
If the atheist is right, however, then God does not exist, so how could he be around to enact Genesis in the first place? No God, no Genesis, no creation in God's image. This would mean that God may exist, but the Christian notion is quite bogus. No Hell, no Christianity, remember? This also means that God may not exist. I'm not trying to debunk atheism here, just religion. I for one am keeping an open mind, within reason. I have a subjectively neutral outlook on the matter.